At the Indian Science Congress in Visakhapatnam in January, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rightly proposed that 2008 be made the year of revitalisation of science education in the country. The decline of science in India is sad because at one time we were at the forefront of scientific enterprise. The quality of teachers was extremely good. After the Indian Civil Service (ICS), teaching was seen as the best option. C.V. Raman actually left the ICS to become a professor.

In the Nehruvian phase and later, there was tremendous excitement about science, technology and engineering. Science in India during this period fitted in with the nation’s desire to harness science for economic development and as an instrument of national prestige. Paradoxically, while globalisation has been made possible by major developments in science and technology elsewhere, science has lost ground in India.

There are two reasons for this: globalisation has transformed the nature of India’s economic growth and it has provided the middle-class with a pretext to decouple itself from the rest of the country. Throughout the world, science is a middle-class activity. But liberalisation has introduced the Indian middle-class to a consumerist lifestyle, which a science career here cannot support. If they want to pursue science, they go to the US. As it is, India does not offer much of an opportunity to conduct world-class science research.

A major reason for the decline in Indian science research and scholarship is that the catchment area of education has stopped expanding. That’s why the education system must bring under its fold the children of illiterate parents. India’s high-growth rate is being driven by the services sector. The West is outsourcing petty jobs to us; in return, we are outsourcing scholars to the West. If the Indian economy doesn’t need science, there can’t be much of a future for science in India.

It is not possible to sustain science as a purely cultural activity over an extended period of time. The purpose of science is to create wealth and the purpose of this wealth is to support science. Unless such a symbiotic relationship is be established, both science and society will suffer.

Rajesh Kochhar is former Director, National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies.

Lecture delivered at Centre for Public Policy, IIM Bangalore,29 August 2007

The term science policy does not command immediate recognition the wayforeign policy and economic policy do. This is because thepublic perception of science in Indiahas been fashioned bytheNehruvian era of innocence and idealism. Intheyears immediately followingindependence, science ( along with technology and education) was seen asthe primary tool ofnation building, which in turn was recognized as the chief goal of the state.In foreignand economic affairs there were conflicting ideologies at work and a considered decision had to be taken on the nation’s line of action. But science wastaken to be benign in all its peace-time manifestations, and the course of science action obvious.

The days of uni-dimensionality of science are over. Globalization has been made possibleby recent advances in information and communication technology. Science has become an important factor in economics, trade and diplomacy. There are no localized events any more. One country’s misfortune or mis-step can be another country’s opportunity (tsunami, SARS, bird-flu). Divisions can have far-reaching political and economic consequences, and yet they must betaken quickly, calling for a high level of preparedness. Demise of internationalism ,and abdicationof responsibility by the state in the name of globalizationaccompanied by the rise of the lobbyist increase the risk of wrong action, over-reaction or, more often, plaininaction.

Ironically , while the role of science in the world asa whole has increased, science and science education havelost ground in India. About 60% of Indian GDP now comes from the service sector which is science-less. The much-flaunted IT sector grossly under-employs people creating man-power shortage in all other sectors. Service economy is essentially a servile economy. The countryhas prematurely got into celebrating what is no more than the wage state in the international work-place, feeding apprehensionsthat it may never reach the royalty stage.

Be itthe predictability of an earthquake; chances of return oftsunami; grounding of anair-bus, probability of bird-flu mutating into human flu; export of heavy-metal rich Ayurvedic preparations; human resource needs of sun-rise sectors ( IT, auto-component , pharmaceutical ),education and thestate science; ecological ,environmentaland employment issues;ortheimpact of globalization onIndian agriculture,there is need to formulate a science-related public policy so that firmand quick decisionscan be taken which will stand the test of time.

Whenever the term economic policy or foreign policy is mentioned, it is greeted with instant recognition. But the term science policy more often than not draws a blank. The reason probably is this. In foreign and economic affairs, conflicting ideologies are known to be at work. Therefore it is recognized that different options be weighed and a considered decision reached on the actual line of action.

Thepublic perception of science in Indiahas been fashioned bytheNehruvian era of innocence and idealism. Science (along with technology and education) was seen as the primary toolfor nation-building which in turn was recognized as the chief goal of the state. In the yearsimmediately after independence it wasimplicitly believed that all peace-time manifestations of sciencemust necessarilybe benevolent. Science itself was the policy; there was no need fora science policy!

The age ofromance with science is long over. Science is no longer uni-dimensional. When I was in NISTADS, I was often asked at semi-social gatherings what my Institute did. “We are researching into science policy” was invariably countered with“ What’s science policy?”. Mind you, the question came not from a fashionable socialite, but a professional or an informed layperson. By trial and error I hit upon a short satisfactory answer , mentioning some of the problems we were interested in. Pesticides in cold drinks; pollution in rivers; falling water table, etc. This seemed to satisfy the questioner, So quite obviously, environmental degradation caused by excessive use of technology has become part of common consciousness. This is a rather obvious and global science aspect of policy. There are others which are less obvious and far more complex, because they are related to nation’s economy and trade.

Some years ago, Chinese deputy science minister visited our Institute for discussions. A few days previously, Business Standard had published an essay where the author argued that just as China had emerged as the manufacturing hub, India should become the services hub. I wrote ashort rejoinder disputing this prescription. I argued that Chinais the hub for low-skill requiring manufacture. India should become the centre for high-skilled upper-end manufacture. I gave a copy of this letter to the Chinese minister who read it , frowned and took my permission to keep it. Then he made a significant remark. China knows that it cannot compete with the West on technologies of today. Therefore it is making money from techs of yesterday and investing in the high techs of the future. China is capable of planning for a hundred years or even longer. In the same spirit during an official visit to China, I was asked to spend some time with a researcher who had been deputed to make projections for the Chinese traditional medicine exports, which are currently worth about its 12 billion dollars. ( China will lose this market overnight if US decides to classify traditional medicine as medicine instead of food supplement.) In contrast,India as a nation is incapable of afraid of keeping a long-term focus, and is scared ofdecision making or advanceplanningfor fear of failure.

There is a basic difference in the approach of India and of China towards the West. China seems to be telling the West : “ This is a beautiful house you are occupying. Get out because I want to live here. India seems to be saying : “ This is a lovely house you are living in. Please permit me to stay in the out-house.

In most countries, public policy is expected to be arrived atfollowing wide-spread and thorough discussions and consultations. Onceformulated it isstrictly adhered to, like an architect’s approved plan is while constructing a house. The term policy or policy document carries tremendous sanctity. It took me quite some time to put across the point ( in Japan and South Korea) that an Indian policy document should not be read with a legal eye. It always remains fluid, permitting lobbying, negotiations, improvements, improvisations, and retreat. Even when a policy has been enunciated ,it can only indicate the broaddirection in which developments are expected to take place. One should look up an Indian policy document for intention rather than promise, supplement it withinsights and information from other sources, and test it against the actual happenings.

The context was a report issued by the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council (NMCC) .It was too general to be of any use, except for the statistical figures itquoted. It is a well-known fact that auto components and pharma are the top priority areas inIndian manufacturingtoday, except thatyou will not learn this from this particular official document.

We must of course distinguish between industrial policy and science policy. More specifically , what is science policy?

Science policy

Science policy can be understood to cover two areas : Policy as related to the pursuit of science itself (covering issues such as funding of basic research, education policy); and public policy issues with a scientific aspect ( climate change, environment, bio-fuels, GM foods, bio-ethics, disaster management, skill development). These two areas are notmutually exclusive. State support for education and scientific research itself is part of public policy. But it is oftenconvenient to distinguish between (i) science policy where science is the output and (ii) science policy where science is an input.

The subject of science policy is very vast. After some general remarks, I would like to dwell on those aspects which are largely ungoogleable, being based on first-hand experience (e.g. economic nationalism by the side door; perceptions of long-range Chinese policy; software triumphalism).

Globalization has been made possible by recent rapid developments in information and communication technology (ICT). Thanks to globalization, markets have become globally competitive; entirely new businesses have opened up; and , most importantly, time scales of change have become extremely short. Countries can no longer conduct their politics, economics and trade in isolation. There are no local events any more. One country’s mis-step or misfortune can be another country’s opportunity.

When tsunami hit Indonesia, tourists shifted to the Indian west coast. Similarly, bird flu in east Asia pushed up Indian poultry exports. For similar reasons, Chinainitially tried to suppress reports of SARS incidence. The world may or may not have become a global village, but it certainly has become a global hospital.

Economic nationalism bythe side door

An importantaspect of globalization does not seem to have received much attention. Globalization may be thriving, but economic nationalism is not dead. It is in hiding and waiting to sneak inthroughthe side door marked environmental and health considerations. ( This is not to say that these considerations are not valid.) Countries are ready to ban import of poultry , beef or other food items on the slightest suspicion. Growing concern aboutChina’s booming exports is being accompanied by stricter examination ofChinese toys, textiles, tooth-pastesfor toxicity. Backlash is developing in the western markets against Chinese goods. China is facing up to thechallenge. But, can India profit from the situation while the going is good?

Current high economic growth in India has been made possible by technological developments elsewhere. It is a worrisome irony that while science and technology aretoday playing a far greater role in trade, economics, diplomacy and international relations than ever before, science and science education have sharply declined in India. This is because globalization has transformed the character of Indian economy. About 60% of Indian GDP now comes from the service sector which is intrinsically science-less. Since Indian economy does not seem to require science any more, science is in decline. This is dangerous. Coping with new developments ( bird flue, GM) is not easy even for better equipped countries .It will be impossible for a scientificallysemi-literate country.

A few years ago when there was an accident involving an airbus, India, in a knee-jerk reaction,groundedall its airbuses for a long time , suffering huge losses in the process. This happened because India did not have the confidence to undertake evaluation ofeven a standard technology. But today there are developments on the scientific and technological frontiers, whichare intrinsically difficult to assess.

Bird flu

Bird flu is a case in point. As is known, domestic poultry can be infected with bird flu virus, whichgets transferred to human beings who come into very close contact with poultry as in Vietnam , China , etc.. So far , the virushas not mutated to be able to transfer from humans to humans. At the same time, wild fowl are known to receive infection from domestic fowl and die. How do you respond tonews of infection in poultry or the death of a wild turkey? Most countries play safe by over-reacting , although it is not possible to say at what stage the reaction crosses the threshold.Many people would argue that the dangers of bird flu are being exaggeratedbecause vaccines have been prepared. The demise of altruisticinternational agencies has made the task of technology assessment very difficult and uncertain.

GM crops

Genetic modification of crops is probably the most significant development in agriculture since the domestication of wheat and barley 9000 years ago. The response it has elicitedthe world over is diverse indeed. It has been a rather easy matter for Europe to take a stand against GM foods because agriculture is not an important part of its economy. US always the boldest is going ahead with it. Australia, which is a big exporter of food grains, is cautiously making a distinction between commercial crops, like Bt cotton 9permitted) and GM foods (taboo).China alone is capable of experimentingunmindful of consequences.

India seemsto be caught in the cross fire within the country. When green revolution was ushered in , international and nationalagencies were involved in a big way. Mexican wheat and Manila rice were developed by world bodies. The new varieties were adaptedto local conditions by the state agricultural universities, and as the next step in the chain the government acted as a bridge between agricultural scientists and the farmers.

But in the case of genetically modified crops, international agencies are totally absent and the state hasfar lesser role and credibility as regulator, advisor or facilitator.GM technologies are being developed by multi-national companies with low credibility. There is nobody to adapt these technologies to suit local conditions; educate the farmers on their use; and closely monitor the developments. There are hardly any reliable monitoring agencies. The space vacated by the retreat of the state has been occupied by NGOs which often overstate their case. On top of this there is a tussle between the GM and pesticide lobbies.

An executive decision , or in case of India a decision by the higher judiciary, can be meaningful only if it is backed by a broad agreement among experts. If the expert opinionsshow a 180 degree spread, the executive decision can go in any direction. Only if the available expertise defines a narrow cone , can one expect the ensuing policy to be broadly in the right direction. State universities , which have the necessary freedom and disinterestedness , must examine the issues rigorously and publish their findings so that policies can be based on firm inputs.

Notwithstanding high growth rates in new economy, India’s political stability and well-being still depend on the health of agricultural sector .The most worrisome part of Indian economy is that agricultural growth has been stagnant for a long period. Although agriculture’s share in GDP has drastically come down , to 20%, as much as 60% of work force still depends on it. As is well-known, agriculture affects other sectors as well. Over-use of agrochemicals and overdrawal of water have posed serious environmental and economic problems. Even without GM, there is scope for increased food production. There is need to revive investment and research in agriculture.

Basic science still needed

Bhuj earthquake

Grounding in fundamentals of science is essential for responding to natural disasters and the public perception thereof. After the Bhuj earthquake, there was a claim by an individual that he had predicted it and conveyed his prediction to the government.. Since the claim was placed before the parliament , the government was asked to explain. I was informally consulted by the then science state minister whose responsibility it was to answer science questions. My reasoning was simple. Even if an individual makes a prediction , the government cannot act on it , becauseit is only after the event that its truthfulness or otherwisecan be ascertained. Government can act only if scientists as a body make a prediction. Science at its current levels is unable to predict earthquakes.

Tsunami

The recent tsunami also raised many questions. There was a phone call from a TV channel reporter . As you know the media gives you the minimum information from its side and wants you to say something. Can another tsunami come? I gave him a class room lecture explaining that an earth quake is always followed by others with increasingly less intensity, and therefore a tsunami cannot be followed by another equally devastating one. It is only then that he revealed that the people had been officially asked tomove away because of the incoming ( second ) tsunami. Whenever there is an earthquake,the media adds to the panic by highlighting the news of theones that follow as if they are as unexpected as the first one was.

There was much discussion on how to deal with tsunamis. A particular stupid and greedy suggestion was to build a wall along the cost. Incidentally , the definition of earthquake according to Geological Survey of India, continuing from the colonial times, recognizes only earthquakes that occur on the mainland , butnot on the sea floor. It is noteworthy that there is no term for tsunami in any Indian language. This tells us thattsunamis wereso infrequent that they never became a part of living memory. The next tsunami to hit the Indian east coast may not appear for two centuries. Also, we already have a nature-given warning system . The nearest tsunami can originate on the east coast is at the distance of Andaman – Nicobar, from where the waves will need about two hours to reach the shore. Unlike the cyclone, thetsunami waves remain tied to the ocean. By keeping the coast clear will minimize the damage.

Electricity from Himalayan rivers

My purpose here has been to drive home the point that a basic understanding of natural phenomena isvery essential. Another example deals with engineering exercises that can lead to man-made disasters. Himalayan rivers are eminently suitable for hydro-power generation. Yet at Nathpa-Jhakrion Satluj in Himachal and Baglihar on Chenabin Kashmir , there have been serious technical problems leading to shut-downs and great financial loss.As is well-known, theHimalayas are kutcha mountains and its rivers carry lot of silt. It appears that while designing the power station, the silt carried by the river has been grossly under-estimated. More generally , when we talk of such grandiose plans as linking of rivers, we tend to view them as water pipes and not dynamic though fragile eco-systems.

Skill requirements in service sector and its impact on others

When the West criticizes India’s nuclear or missile programme , we feel happy. Similarly when the West praises India’s so-called IT prowess , why don’t webecome suspicious that there must be a catch somewhere? As a substitute for hard-core long-term thinking, we indulge in tokenism and triumphalism. India’s share in the world IT market is about 2%.It is too small to make India a hub. In contrast, India’s share in dismantling electronic wasteandin breaking ships is about 30% each. Properly speaking India is a hub for dealingwith obsolete computers than the current ones.

Indian software and BPO sector is expected to earn $41 bn in 2007-08.This figure may appear to be large , but is not when placed in context. In the same period India expects to receive $30 bn as private remittances from Indians living/working abroad ( about two thirds of this comes from the Gulf and USA).In 2005 China earnedfrom US about $60bn from export of low-tech sports goods, toys and the like. Indian IT sector ( with more I than T)is characterized by gross under-employment. It is acting as a brain sink, causing severe problems for all other sectors including manufacturingand government science.

Even within software-driven sector, there is an acute shortage of skilled labour, restricting growth , pushing up costs and preventing move up the value ladder. Software companiesseem to be more interested in collaborating with the government inacquiring real estate than in training people.

Difference in perception:GE in US and in India/China

R & D centres

I have downloaded a paper by an American academic, entitled “Globalization and its impact on science , technology and education: A macro analysis”. Itlauds “reformation, restructuring and re-definition of existing technological networks” brought about by globalization. “GE’s worldwide R&D system best personifies this new alignment-along with its major global R&Dcenter in Niskayuna, New York (near Albany), GE now has active R&D centers in Shanghai, Bangalore, Munich, and St. Petersburg, Russia.”

This may well be true. It however needs to be driven home that in Indian R&Dcentres of foreign companies, there is more D than R. Also , all the patents are owned by the parent company , even if the authors of the patents are Indians. If these centres were in the West, the Indians employed would be getting much higher salaries, and bringing home most of the savings.

You do not become rich from wages; you become rich from royalties. Of course, training under foreign auspices is a necessary prerequisite, but if we start celebrating the wage- stage, we will never reach the royalty stage.

GE business model

Let usreturn to the business model of GE. In 1990 General ElectricMedical Systems (GEMS) set up an ultrasound machineproduction unit in Bangalore in collaboration with WIPRO.GE’s medical division operates at three levels. Its units in US are meant to produce “leadership products” for advanced university hospitals, while Japan provides machinesfor big and small hospitalsin Europe and Japan.Indiaand China arethe hub for “low-cost segment, mainly aimed at the mega-markets in Asia.” There can be no doubt that the ultrasound industry in India ( and China) is being driven by abortion economy.

When economies were isolated, it was easy to define national interest and devise ways to protect and advance it. National interest is still important under globalization, although it is easy to lose focus. S & T issues are more important than ever before and require clearer and sharper thinking as a prelude to quick and decisive action.//

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for.”

Many astronomers believe that when Robert Browning wrote these lines he had them in mind. But now the physicists are hell- bent on bringing the heavens within their grasp. How did the universe look millionths of seconds after the Big Bang? There has been enough speculation on that. Now it is time the laboratory came forward to provide some answers. Lord Rutherford, the pioneering nuclear scientist and 1908 Nobel laureate, summed up the spirit of his age by declaring: “We have not got the money, so we have got to think”. Times have changed since. Basic science has increasingly become a child of high technology. The physicists’ mantra today is: “We have got the money, so we have got to think big.”

Thinking could not possibly have got any bigger. The new initiative brings physics centre stage after more than a generation and restores particle physics leadership to Europe after a long time. European Organization for Nuclear Research (known as CERN after the French acronym of an earlier name) has recently commissioned the world’s largest and the most ambitious particle physics laboratory, built 50m to 175m underneath the France-Swiss border near Geneva. It consists of a circular tunnel, 3.8m in diameter, in the shape of a ring, 27 km in circumference. Two beams each containing trillions of protons and accelerated to speeds just short of that of light will be circling in opposite directions. For most of the ring these beams would be travelling in separate vacuum pipes, but at four selected points they will collide. The collision of extremely energetic particles should produce new particles normally not seen. Their study is expected to be rewarding.

Although the machine is simply called Large Hadron Collider (hadron denoting protons and neutrons), the project has two more essential parts. Detectors installed at the four points will identify the components of the results ofthe collisions while the Computing Grid, a four-tiered global network of computers and software, will store and analyse the data recorded by the detectors. The beams were test fired on 10 September while the collisions are slated for October end.

What do the scientists hope to find?

A physicist who died towards the close of the 19th century would have died a contented man. He knew his universe. It was a predictable, obedient clockwork fashioned by Newtonian forces. All matter was made of entities dubbed atoms. The etymology is instructive. The word comes from Greek meaning un-cuttable. But the matter did not end there.

A recurrent statement in the 18th century discourse was that science was nothing but common sense. Innocence ended with the century. Nineteenth century decoupled science from every day experience . Physics today is in a very messy state. Many extant theories are very complex, lack elegance and are infested with loose ends. They cannot possibly be the last word. They must evolve towards a state of simplicity. But if they are to improve they must receive some new inputs and new constraints from experiments. That is where the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) comes in.

An atom is made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutronsare in turn made of quarks and gluons. Quarks , gluons and electrons are , at current levels of knowledge, fundamental in the sense that they are indivisible . There are at present 57 fundamental particles actually observed, with 16 distinct names. (There are for example eight types of gluons.) How come that some particles have mass while others don’t? The answer may lie with atheoretical particle which has not been detected so far. It has been dubbed the God particlenot by a journalist looking for a clever phrase but by a science Nobel laureate ( Leon Ledernan).The term may be an abbreviation for goddamn particle voicing the scientist’ frustration at its elusiveness. The popularity of the term,not withstanding the scientists’ disapproval of it , does convey how important it isperceived to be for the standard theory of particle physics. The formal name isthe Higgsboson orthe Higgs particle, after the Scottish physicist Peter Higgs who propounded the theory in 1964. ( Interestingly , boson is named after the Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose who first worked out the statistics of these particles in 1924. A theoretical physicist at CERN, John Ellis, has an interesting analogy on howparticles acquire mass throughinteraction with the hypothetical Hiiggs field. Different elementary particles are like a crowd of people running through mud. Some particles, like quarks, have big boots that get covered with lot of mud. Others, like electrons, have little shoes that barely gather any mud. Photons do not wear shoes; they just glide over the top of the mud .Higgs field , with which the Higgs particle is associated, is the mud. If LHC can find the Higgs boson it would be splendid. If it can prove that the particle does not exist that would be even more significant.

A remarkable achievement of the 20th century science has been the merger of particle physics and cosmology. The Big Bang model of the universe tells us that at one time the cosmos was unimaginably small, without time, space or laws of nature. It consisted entirely of energy which then materialized. It is believed that in the Big Bang equal quantities of matter and anti-matter were produced. But when we see ourselves and countless galaxies we only see matter. What happened to the anti-matter? No point in asking aphysicist today. You would only embarrass them.

An intriguing feature of today’s universe is what is known as the problem of the dark matter. We detect matter courtesy the electromagnetic radiation it emits (visible light, radio waves, x-ray, gamma rays). But matter can feel other matter gravitationally. From the motion of visible matter we infer that there must be other matter around. It is estimated that only four percent of all matter in the universe is visible. The remaining is dark matter ( 23%) and dark energy ( 73%). Let us hopeLHC willbe able to throw some light on the matter!

Where does India fit in the scheme?

All ambitious scientific projects the world over are characterized by a common thought pattern. At one level there is the local pride : “ We are doing it”. At the same time there is the desireto exclaim : “ We are doing it on behalf of the whole humankind”. It always makes sense to invite others on the stage as long as you remain at the centre. If small contributions can be arranged from other countries, the chances of raising substantial funding from your own sources increases. International cooperation enriches the project intellectually and cuts costs because fabrication of secondary components can be outsourced. In addition there is the problem of data deluge. An experiment would produce enormous amount of data. Major, headline-hitting, discoveries are made by the core groups themselves . The data are then successively passed down the line for extraction of whatever juice is left.

The LHC project includes 111 nations in designing, building and testing equipment and software, participating in experiments and analysing data.The list includesIndia,China, Pakistan , Nepal , BangladDesh andVietnam among others. India isinvolved at various levels.It has supplied components towards accelerating the beams.The nodal point for this is the Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technologies, Indore. Indian teamsdrawn from several national institutes and universities are also participating in twoof theexperiments , affectionately known as ALICE and CMS.ALICEincludes more than 750 physicists and about 70 institutions in 27 countries, while the CMS collaboration consists of over 1800 scientists and engineers from 151 institutes in 31 countries.

It may not be out of place to insert a copmment or two on the electronic and print media cverage of science in general.The press tends to go overboard while reporting on India’s place in world science.Itshould be a matter ofsome satisfaction that India is participating in an epochal scientific experiment.But if India had refused to join would LHC have felt handicapped in any manner? Probably not.While the media persons can be quite ruthlesswhile covering political , military and economic stories, they do not mind acting as stenographers while reporting scientific matters . Once a while scientists are also entitled to their fifteen minutes of immortality, but it is always befitting to maintain a sense of proportion. While reading statements within inverted commas, one is at times reminded of a line from an old Hindi film song : “ Begaani shaadi mein Abdulla divaana”.

Ironically as the world enjoys more and more the fruits of technology its respect for science seems to be going down.The electronic media presents an interesting paradox.Various channels do not mind buying and installing the same technology. And yet each one of them wants an exclusve story to break.By definition mainstream science cannot provide an exclusive lead, only pseudo-science can. No wonder then that it is having a field day.

It is noteworthy that throughout the world , especially thanks to internet blogging, a scare was created that the LHC experiment could create a black hole that would in turn destroy the whole world or at least part of it. In this age of digital egalitarianism, scientists can no longer dismiss such rumours as nonsense, even though that is what they are. Why do such rumours arise? The world’s faith in science and scientists is on the decline. Caught between cloning and black hole the non-scientist cannot but feel discomfited.

There would be enough time to go into the sociology of science and technology. For the moment hereis hoping thata “small” terrestrial laboratory of today will recreatethe universe just after its creation.

When big scientific experiments are proposed support has to be canvassed fromwithin the scientific community and from fund-givers. The proposal must therefore be integrated into the existing body of knowledge. It must be clearly spelt out what current problems are likely to be solved. In their own hearts scientists however hope that they would come across and be able to recognize something unexpected and unanticipated. Therein lies the romance of science.

The author is a former professor ofIndian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangaloreand former director of National Institute of Science, Technology and Development, New Delhi.